the question for pro choice advocates is this.....if a pregnant woman is attacked, and the attacker purposely injures the unborn child so that even though the woman lives she still has a miscarriage....is the attacker guilty of manslaughter or murder??

Personally, I'd say he's guilty if the child has reached the point where (s)he is recognized as having the right to exist (the same point at which the mother loses the right to terminate the pregnancy outside of medical necessity). Until that point, it's clearly okay to kill the child. It makes no sense for it to be okay for one person, but not another, to commit the same offense (killing the same child at the same point of development simply because they did not want the child to live and be born)

the question for pro choice advocates is this.....if a pregnant woman is attacked, and the attacker purposely injures the unborn child so that even though the woman lives she still has a miscarriage....is the attacker guilty of manslaughter or murder??

Click to expand...

if the woman considers her baby to be a child, it is murder.
if she considers the baby to be a fetus, it is a forced abortion.

either way it is an assault, it is against her will,
and it depends on what she believes if it is murder or not.

if everyone agreed on the law, then yes, even if there is a religious issue
involved, laws can be made that reflect public consensus

the laws on murder and the death penalty depend on the public
agreeing for the state to have authority to judge and to punish

so there should be consensus on issues of abortion and unborn
babies in the womb, in order for laws to be constitutional
and not impose any unfair religious bias

in this case, if there is not agreement religiously on the status of the baby,
I would go with what the woman believes.

if there are other people who feel the loss of this baby as a child,
such as a husband/partner or other family, I believe they have the
right to argue it is a murder in their case. they may not be able
to argue for other people, but certainly they have the right to
state what their losses and damages are in their own case.

by equal religious freedom, I would respect the people in any such case
to have their beliefs taken into account; just not imposing one person's
beliefs on any other case, but respecting the individual religious beliefs.

if there can be consensus on all cases, yes I would support laws based
on consent, but not imposing values or laws on each other without consent.

this issue of children in the womb is a religious matter until and unless
teh conflicts in law are resolved, either by proof or agreement on belief,
or whatever is required to form a consensus. in the meantime I do not think
it is fair or constitutional to impose laws that carry a bias one way or another
to exclude or discriminate against other views, so I urge consensus instead.

the question for pro choice advocates is this.....if a pregnant woman is attacked, and the attacker purposely injures the unborn child so that even though the woman lives she still has a miscarriage....is the attacker guilty of manslaughter or murder??

Click to expand...

if the woman considers her baby to be a child, it is murder.
if she considers the baby to be a fetus, it is a forced abortion.

either way it is an assault, it is against her will,
and it depends on what she believes if it is murder or not.

if everyone agreed on the law, then yes, even if there is a religious issue
involved, laws can be made that reflect public consensus

the laws on murder and the death penalty depend on the public
agreeing for the state to have authority to judge and to punish

so there should be consensus on issues of abortion and unborn
babies in the womb, in order for laws to be constitutional
and not impose any unfair religious bias

in this case, if there is not agreement religiously on the status of the baby,
I would go with what the woman believes.

if there are other people who feel the loss of this baby as a child,
such as a husband/partner or other family, I believe they have the
right to argue it is a murder in their case. they may not be able
to argue for other people, but certainly they have the right to
state what their losses and damages are in their own case.

by equal religious freedom, I would respect the people in any such case
to have their beliefs taken into account; just not imposing one person's
beliefs on any other case, but respecting the individual religious beliefs.

if there can be consensus on all cases, yes I would support laws based
on consent, but not imposing values or laws on each other without consent.

this issue of children in the womb is a religious matter until and unless
teh conflicts in law are resolved, either by proof or agreement on belief,
or whatever is required to form a consensus. in the meantime I do not think
it is fair or constitutional to impose laws that carry a bias one way or another
to exclude or discriminate against other views, so I urge consensus instead.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!